ETLG Annual Meeting
UCSD
Day 1
9:15 Welcome / Light Breakfast Introductions and thank yous
10:00 ETLG Future - What do we want to be?
Jeff: context for this discussion and his philosophy about how best to run ETLG. Feeling of a lack of engagement from the previous year. Tried to leave more of the driving to the committees and task forces.
Review of survey results from Ohmage.
Strong agreement on accomplishing the first two elements of our charge. What can we do better on sharing information? General agreement that things are pretty good, and maybe reword the last element of the charge. Get IDFS to give us an update on the conference calls or as needed. Running Google Doc with campus updates. Berkeley Canvas group is open to conversation. The Turnit in survey very helpful. As UCOE and ILTI as a regular update like one of the other campuses. ILTI milestones reserved on the call agenda.
Chart of areas of interest for the coming year: Media Casting, Analytics,
Adding smart boards to LCD panels in classrooms at Riverside. Berkeley moving active learning classroom tech to the GA classrooms.
Future areas for discussion task force on analytics. Media casting in the monthly phone calls.
ITLC Liaison report from Jeff. Need some items to report to ITLC. IMS business contact - Jeff will remain. The IMS payment is now a budget line item. Inventory of how we are dealing with captioning. Captioning issue is coming home to roost. Need to get best practices nailed down. Who is burdened with trying to comply? Berkeley pitch document for a campus global accessibility group,. How best to do this without being the “accessibility police”. EALT recommendations have been adopted and then pushed down to campuses to form committees.
- What does ETLG want to do as a committee?
- How can the ETLG be more effective?
- What does the committee have the power/ability/influence to do collectively?
- How can we leverage the committee to add value to the individual campuses and the system?
- Explore the various campus/department relationships and areas where the ETLG has had success in the past and build on that.
- Discussion to fund a percentage of a position to manage administrative tasks and help the chair
11:00 Final Recommendation and Report of the Click-Through Agreement Task Force
Discussion: Jenn and David leading discussion and talking about the written recommendations. Basically ended up being a response to last year’s ITLC workgroup on vendor agreements. The key is being proactive in educating the faculty about the implications of agreeing to the terms of these agreements. The risks here are more fraught with peril than is the case with copyright violations. UCOE Master services agreements can apply, but with local addenda to meet local requirements.
12:00 Lunch (buffet)
12:45 Analytics
Discussion:
What analytics doe we collect for our faculty?
What analytics might we want to share systemwide?
what would that be? Can we agree on that. ILTI does have a funding category for evaluation and accountability. Shoreh - there are both administrative analytics and instructional analytics that could be usefully linked. Also can have an impact on advising and the effectiveness of that advising. Unizin is also largely in this space as well. The right space to have a conversation about. Perhaps there is a hook between learning analytics and student success that could allow us to address this new 50 million dollars grant for student success.Berkeley has their own research canter and they are part of EdX which also is interested in this kind of data.
we also ned to develop policy about collecting and analyzing student data now, rather than in response to a crisis.
How many campuses have an IRB in place for all data in the LMS? Probably none. Stanford’s medical school did this at one point. Can we look at a student bill of rights for their data? Privates are moving more rapidly into the game of linking students affairs data and learning data than public institutions are.
Civitas Learning from Austin - engagement data for online courses.
Of course the next question is how do we best analyze the data to answer interesting questions?
Sponsor a systemwide research project on this?
Form a task force, student bill of rights, interested parties, questions of interest. George to do.
What concerns do we have about third parties collecting analytics about our users, and should we bring those concerns to the ITLC?
Getting those analytics back form the vendors, and then what would we do with that data?
Possibility of renegotiating terms of contracts with those vendors to get our data back at no cost.
1:45 Demo of CASA followed by discussion of application and benefits
Community App Sharing Architecture (CASA)
An app store infrastructure.
What is an app? It is content and functionality. Over 100,000 education apps out there now. Perhaps the best way to go is a web of trust of interconnected app stores. Two use cases so far: Mobile Dashboard and the LMS LTI tool listing.
2:45 Break
3:00 Report on ILTI and UCOE - Mary-Ellen Kreher
Difference between ILTI and UCOE? UCOE is for enrolling non-metriculated students in UC online courses. UCOE group is serving as the support team for ILTI projects. Right now 90% of work is on ILTI work and only 10% on non-metriculated students. No more Blackboard for marketing or student support. That is all being handled through UC Merced. Numbers in the “100’s”. MOOCs kind of took the wind out of the sails. Keith Williams retired in June. Team now is Mary-Ellen, Doquen, Paul Montoya, Ellen Osmundesn, Mary Chinguan. This is different form the 50 million in state money that is on the table. Tom wants this group to grapple with making a pitch for that money. ILTI is 10 million/year for 3 years.
ILTI:
Campus Awards
Course Awards (range 12,000 - 135,000)
Cross-Campus Instructional Funds - for TAs
Course Revision Funds
Instructional Tool Awards - open license, and reuse potential, LTI compliant.
For any of the ILTI courses, hosting on the UCOE Canvas is a possibility. Some courses are already running, and are now eligible for the revision funding.
New course RFP this September, with six week response window. More streamlined process from last year. ILTI criteria will be explicit in the RFP. Reviews in October-December. Targeted subject areas will be a focus of an additional RFP. Money awarded in January-February.
Year One Report:
Mini-hub launched last November
Cross-enrollment website in November
23 cross-enrollment course instances launched
321 Students enrolled in cords-enrollment courses/101 completed usually for administrative reasons
Not all campuses put the information on the cross-enrollment courses at the top of their registration page. UCSB is highest user, because listing is at the top of GOLD.
Current Projects:
CCES (The Enrollment Hub)
Searchable Database of courses
Evaluation plan, currently in requirements and then to go to RFP
Course Approvals process for cross-enrollment courses
3:30 General Discussion about Interest in Unizin - All (Resources http://unizin.org/resources/)
Jenn - Berkeley was approached early by the group. Cost could just be 1 million/year for three years, for the whole UC system, not 1 million per campus. General skepticism about the whole enterprise. Outcome is that George will contact the Unizen folks and try to arrange a phone conference to talk with them, ask questions and do our due diligence.
4:00 Meeting Adjourns
Day 2
8:15 Light Breakfast / Informal Discussions
9:00 Welcome and Introductions (Tom and Jim Joining the Meeting)
9:15 Campus Updates on Coordination with ILTI Process and Projects
UCSB update
UCSD 5 projects for faculty. The Econ project has 6 faculty involved. Some video production for most of the projects. Bulk of time worked on Joel’s project. UCOE is providing the ID person for the business project.
Riverside: Issue is that the faculty have been working pretty independently from Israel’s team. Want to use some of the ILTI infrastructure funds to renovate studio space to support these projects. Have been providing some help on advice. Vice Chancellor will be releasing an RFP for projects to use the 100,000. Israel’s org will get the 150K.
LA: six projects, at least one coordinated with Irvine. Many of these projects started in advance of the ILTI funding. Some projects trying to augment ILTI funds with campus funds, others trying to work within the limits. Senate wants to start grappling with criteria for approving online courses.
Santa Cruz: Two projects currently going, and a couple coming along. Will be hiring an instructional designer to help these projects from the one time money. Still working on Robin’s retirement
Davis: 6 projects on campus. Geology and writing courses, partnered with other campuses. Offering instructional design support for some of the courses. Working on a self serve studio for faculty to be able to record videos. Been spending a significant amount of time to get that setup. Central funds distribution still in the works.
Merced: Two projects. No instructional designers, so relying on UCOE for that kind of talent. Central funding still with the EVC.
Berkeley: Very distributed manner of supporting the courses. ETS is doing the tools development for the two tool dev. projects that were funded. One is a media gallery with metrics for student engagement. Collabosphere project which is similar to the gallery. Want to be able to build tools that can run in platform and be LTI capable.
Irvine: Shohreh’s shop provides the infrastructure, but not too much direct faculty development support. All of that support comes fem the distance learning center. Close partnerships with that group. Want to make teaching and learning easier with tech. Seriously looking at Canvas as a platform. Astronomy, writing and rhetoric, among others. Central ILTI funds in process of being distributed through tech and registrar.
ITLC: Tom will be appointed to the steering committee for ILTI. Can represent ITLC and ETLG on that committee.
Larry going forward, a big thing is going to be evaluation and analytics that are key to these courses. Analytics will be key to this. Jim: The data part is the dominant part. A lot of interest in pre and post course activities and combining the information from administrative and analytic data. UCLA: Going down the path of a data privacy strategy for student data. Jim: EAA look at the efficacy of the tools for doing evaluation, and that has shifted. Discussion of the original UCOE analysis. Preliminary in 2012 and final in 2013. Report focussed on the experience, and not the efficacy. Showing efficacy in any single intervention, does not really carry much weight. UCLA exit surveys, less resistance to online instruction.
General discussion about penetration of fully online instruction. Faculty workload issues. Workload for support issues.
Tom: issue of how to get to scale with the reality of the distributed autonomous nature of the system. Something like content repositories that faculty might not care about that could scale. What are the things we are not doing at scale on our own campuses? Not much. Need a digital asset management system to curate and make accessible all of this material. Larry the inspiration factor.
9:45 Captioning and Accessibility Approaches and Funding (Deferred to Later Conference Call)
10:30 Break
10:45 Professor Joel Watson Demonstration
Been at UCSD for 20 years. Past chair of econ department.
1. Overview of pedagogical considerations regarding web-based content for courses.
2. Watson-Famulari handbook concept and current thoughts on course formats.
Notion of a flexible handbook of materials and exercises that can be drawn on for core curriculum. Mix and match approach from a library of modules. Could be applicable to many other subjects. Three basic presentation modes for the videos. Screencasts, Podium talk, glass, and hybrids. Podium style about 2 hours of prep for each 10 minutes opt lecture. Can do the flip by recording off a mirror between the glass and the camera. Captioning helps many students besides student with disabilities. Do not use color to encode important information in the presentation.
3. Famulari-Watson ILTI project
4. Demonstration of formats and issues
5. Discussion of analytical options
6. Legal and other issues
12:00 Lunch
12:45 Campus Demos (Israel, Jenn, Rose)
Jenn: Berkeley student dashboard initiative. Cal Central, a way to improve the student experience based on interconnects between various system available to them on campus. Also integrates with Google tasks. Also link to mail and calendar invitations all from the same interface. As well as latest 30 things recently updated. Also integrates access to both LMS system currently running on campus, both Sakai and Canvas. High degree of coordination between systems to aggregate for students in a useful and actionable form. Built on a platform they call “Junction” Jruby and RoR which is what they are using for other projects. Also available for faculty and TAs. Probably include course evals too.
Israel: Software as a Service system at Riverside. Looked at Virtual Lab possibility. Released an apps called “My Software” lets students download and run license software to virtual desktops on machine stunning in the data center. Hardware in place to support 300 seats for each platform. Client runs on iPad or web browser. Working out what common applications need to be installed in each of the images. Printing not yet available. All built in house.Licensing issues? Lecture hall upgrade with smart LCD boards.
Rose: Contest called “Code for the Mission”. Three tracks for service, education and research. Paretnership between IP Office and Rose’s group. Like and protracted hackathon or booth camp. Project boards to match up projects with on campus developers to make teams. Invloved Deans in the process as judges. Awards will be given out in fall. Prize money from the IP Office.
1:15 Tom’s remarks to the group
2:00 Closing Comments
2:30 Meeting Adjourns (room available until 4:00 for informal discussions)